The time has come: De-platform climate change denial.
The “debate” is over. Show them the door.
You’re familiar with the Dr. Seuss story, Horton Hears a Who, right? The one with the elephant? In the story, the Whoville citizens are faced with an impending existential threat: if they do not all band together and take action, collectively raising their voices as one, their entire world will be tossed into hot oil and they will all be boiled alive. It’s a remarkable story with an uplifting message. Spoiler: they rally everyone just in the nick of time, and manage to save themselves from certain doom.
Now, imagine the story a bit differently: despite all evidence to the contrary, a few Who citizens decide they’re not going to help anyway. Moreover, they’ll tell everyone else not to bother either. “We won’t really be boiled,” they say. “Don’t worry. Our dust speck has been hot before.” Or, “we can’t really affect anything.” Or “even if we could, it’s too hard.” Some of these Whos are unwilling to see the reality of the situation: it’s just too huge to bear, and the denial is a coping mechanism to pretend it’s not happening. Others are motivated for more devious reasons: perhaps their income is dependent on things remaining exactly how they are, or maybe they believe they’ll be able to buy their way to safety when the worst finally comes.
In this version of the story, the naysayers don’t help, of course. By itself, this might be bearable — they are a very small minority, after all, and the rest of the citizens can cover for their loss. But by the constant propaganda of their own campaign, they manage to rope fellow citizens into the lie. Whos are like us: easily swayed by a convincing argument, especially when it reinforces a good narrative we already want to believe. Suddenly, enough people are dissuaded from taking the necessary action. No “Yop!” is heard, the speck of dust goes into the pot, and everyone dies.
This is a rather apt interpretation of what humanity is struggling with right now. The recent release of the IPCC report on climate change paints a dire picture: we have just over ten years to take drastic action or we face the certain death of nearly 750 million humans, and half of all species on the planet. This should be a galvanizing call to action for everyone. We are nearing an event quite literally worse than the Holocaust, but we also have the luxury of knowing in advance, and the means to prevent it.
Unsurprisingly, there are still Pollyanna types claiming that climate change is false. Surprisingly, the rest of us are still tolerating it.
Climate change denial should be treated as a bannable offense on social media platforms. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and other sites must update their rules to specifically disallow poisoning public discourse with dangerous lies.
Attempting to parrot climate change denial propaganda should be treated as a TOS violation, resulting in post removal. Linking to denialist websites should trip automated spam filters and block the post. Repeated offenses should cause account suspension or banning.
It’s clear to anyone who has tried to argue with a denialist, but for everyone else: you cannot debate these people. You cannot convince them otherwise. You cannot “win”. They will NEVER change their minds. Not only is it a complete waste of time, it’s actually worse: engagement in public causes onlookers to give credence to their wrong ideas, reinforcing the notion that this should be “up for debate” at all, or that “they make some good points”.
The time has come to treat climate change denial in the same way as we do holocaust denial, Nazi symbols, and other “too dangerous for society” ideas. We need to stop talking about these lies in public, where they actively harm our chances of species survival. We need to push them to the fringe, where they can do the least damage, and get on with the business of saving our butts.
Responses to some sure-to-come rebuttals:
“But the science is not in.”
Yes, it is. It is absolutely clear, it is widely repeated, it is a consensus. It is truth.
I could link to the evidence, but I won’t bother, because anyone attempting to raise this point is never doing so in good faith. They are actively contributing to the FUD and are the primary target of this proposal. We must limit the damage they can do, and proceed without them in meaningful action.
“Allowing debate is not a problem.”
The entire reason — the ENTIRE reason — that we have reached this point, is that we have tolerated “discussion” for as long as we have. For too long news outlets and pundits acted as though it is a “both sides” issue, where there is some consensus to reach or where both actors are approaching it from a good-faith position. Bystanders believed they were receiving balanced viewpoints and honest research.
That is not, and was never, the case.
As a direct result of the long slog and endless propaganda (some foisted on us by fabricated studies planted by oil companies), we find ourselves in this situation: what should be completely non-issue environmental policy becomes a hot political one. We let this happen by putting up with it. No more.
“They will just go somewhere else.”
Yes, I am quite certain they will. There are places all over the Internet, and offline, specifically dedicated to discussing the things we do not discuss in public.
However, it’s also true that these platforms carry far less traffic and influence than the major hubs most people congregate on. Facebook is a far, far different place than a Reddit spinoff.
In other words, prohibition works.
“What about free speech?”
Technically correct: this is absolutely an attempt to curb “free speech”. But there are two things to consider here.
First, legal “free speech” protections do not extend to cover commercial platforms. If Facebook chooses to ban or restrict sharing of dangerous ideas like climate change denial, that is entirely within their rights, and there is no legal recourse for people upset by this development.
While the philosophical point remains, courts and governments of numerous nations have found that restrictions can still apply: one cannot share bomb-making plans, hate speech, shout “fire” in a crowded theater, etc. It is important to keep in mind the gravity of this situation. This is a situation severe enough to warrant some policing, given that the alternative is certain destruction.
Please keep in mind that this is different than tolerating “free speech” about something like evolution, gender studies, abortion, etc. This is a literal life-and-death matter. Put aside the convictions of your ideology, and face the practicality of surviving.
